Gun Control Compromise

[Conservative65]

I have neighbors that are big anti gun lefties. When I go shooting, I make an effort to load the car when they are outside. I was lucky enough to do that recently and it allowed me to educate the ignorant on a few things. Sad part is she is a college professor and he works in some professional position at a major construction company.

I own an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. As I was loading both, she made a comment that people shouldn't own assault weapons. I showed her the Mini 14 asking her why I shouldn't own it and why she thought it was an assault rifle. She indicated her statement was about the AR-15 although she couldn't call it by name but referred to it as the "scary looking military one". I asked her was the Mini 14 OK to own and despite her claim that she didn't like guns, she was OK with it calling it a "hunting rifle". It gave me a chance to educated the supposed educated lefty. During the lesson it was explained to her that both fired a .223, functioned semi automatically, and had the same size magazine. They are the same gun other than the looks. I could tell she was surprised and wanted to say something negative about the Mini 14 but knew that would prove her dislike of the AR was based on how it looked rather than how it functioned. Haven't had any more comments in similar situations.

kudos for the educational patience approach. i prefer that whenever possible. this is a GREAT example of my point that unless you know about guns, you shouldn't be writing laws about them. i know one said they don't know how to fix cars, but i'm pretty sure they know how they work and that a bus isn't a compact car also. they at least know the basics of cars and how they work to writing laws on how they operate. i doubt anyone ever thought once you ran out of gas, you had to get a new gas tank which is about the closest analogy i can think of.

the media portrays them as military weapons and while they're styled after military weapons yes, i can't think of a single major country that uses AR15's in their military. they will use the military version. why?

they are different.

the mini 14 is an amazing rifle. i'd look into one if they made them left handed but i don't believe they do. maybe some searching when i get home and research. but in any event, i wish more people would do the education approach and i wish more people were receptive to it. i wish they'd change their minds with said knowledge. but when they find out they're "semi-automatic" they now want to ban semi-automatics, not go "wow i was wrong about automatic weapons".

the more you seem to explain the AR is like most other rifles in functionality and "end result" the more they want to simply ban all guns.

then they wonder why people want to talk "sensible" laws cause they push for "more" of them the more they tend to "not-learn".

They are good neighbors and don't cause problems. We get along fine. They have different views on things. Had the situation been otherwise, I would not have been as nice and made them look like idiots. By the views they expressed, they proved themselves to be idiots.

well they sounded at least receptive. opinions dug into any of us seldom change quickly. sounds like you made step 1 of maybe 10 steps needed to get people to understand. not asking for anyone to suddenly love guns, but at least understand what you like and don't like about them in a correct manner.

i just got some new neighbors and i already miss my last one. he just "moved away" without a word and didn't reply to text messages. now i have another family with kids. never had kids living next to me in 20 years. another phase of life has begun. now my security camera on my driveway catches the garbage man, lawn crew, a random bobcat or neighbors cat, and now - kids playing.

They heard what I said. Unless it changes their faulty opinion, they weren't receptive. That she wanted to change her statement about the Mini 14 being bad having been provided the knowledge that it was the same as the AR yet knowing it would discredit any argument she had at least says she has some level of intelligence.

and that's where i have fault.

when i learn i am wrong, i change. others when they learn they are wrong, demonize it anyway and find reason to justify it. huge difference in how people deal with things around them.

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

 

[iceberg]

kudos for the educational patience approach. i prefer that whenever possible. this is a GREAT example of my point that unless you know about guns, you shouldn't be writing laws about them. i know one said they don't know how to fix cars, but i'm pretty sure they know how they work and that a bus isn't a compact car also. they at least know the basics of cars and how they work to writing laws on how they operate. i doubt anyone ever thought once you ran out of gas, you had to get a new gas tank which is about the closest analogy i can think of.

the media portrays them as military weapons and while they're styled after military weapons yes, i can't think of a single major country that uses AR15's in their military. they will use the military version. why?

they are different.

the mini 14 is an amazing rifle. i'd look into one if they made them left handed but i don't believe they do. maybe some searching when i get home and research. but in any event, i wish more people would do the education approach and i wish more people were receptive to it. i wish they'd change their minds with said knowledge. but when they find out they're "semi-automatic" they now want to ban semi-automatics, not go "wow i was wrong about automatic weapons".

the more you seem to explain the AR is like most other rifles in functionality and "end result" the more they want to simply ban all guns.

then they wonder why people want to talk "sensible" laws cause they push for "more" of them the more they tend to "not-learn".

They are good neighbors and don't cause problems. We get along fine. They have different views on things. Had the situation been otherwise, I would not have been as nice and made them look like idiots. By the views they expressed, they proved themselves to be idiots.

well they sounded at least receptive. opinions dug into any of us seldom change quickly. sounds like you made step 1 of maybe 10 steps needed to get people to understand. not asking for anyone to suddenly love guns, but at least understand what you like and don't like about them in a correct manner.

i just got some new neighbors and i already miss my last one. he just "moved away" without a word and didn't reply to text messages. now i have another family with kids. never had kids living next to me in 20 years. another phase of life has begun. now my security camera on my driveway catches the garbage man, lawn crew, a random bobcat or neighbors cat, and now - kids playing.

They heard what I said. Unless it changes their faulty opinion, they weren't receptive. That she wanted to change her statement about the Mini 14 being bad having been provided the knowledge that it was the same as the AR yet knowing it would discredit any argument she had at least says she has some level of intelligence.

and that's where i have fault.

when i learn i am wrong, i change. others when they learn they are wrong, demonize it anyway and find reason to justify it. huge difference in how people deal with things around them.

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

yep. you tell them it's not different than a hunting rifle other than looks, they now want the hunting rifle gone.

 

[Conservative65]

They are good neighbors and don't cause problems. We get along fine. They have different views on things. Had the situation been otherwise, I would not have been as nice and made them look like idiots. By the views they expressed, they proved themselves to be idiots.

well they sounded at least receptive. opinions dug into any of us seldom change quickly. sounds like you made step 1 of maybe 10 steps needed to get people to understand. not asking for anyone to suddenly love guns, but at least understand what you like and don't like about them in a correct manner.

i just got some new neighbors and i already miss my last one. he just "moved away" without a word and didn't reply to text messages. now i have another family with kids. never had kids living next to me in 20 years. another phase of life has begun. now my security camera on my driveway catches the garbage man, lawn crew, a random bobcat or neighbors cat, and now - kids playing.

They heard what I said. Unless it changes their faulty opinion, they weren't receptive. That she wanted to change her statement about the Mini 14 being bad having been provided the knowledge that it was the same as the AR yet knowing it would discredit any argument she had at least says she has some level of intelligence.

and that's where i have fault.

when i learn i am wrong, i change. others when they learn they are wrong, demonize it anyway and find reason to justify it. huge difference in how people deal with things around them.

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

yep. you tell them it's not different than a hunting rifle other than looks, they now want the hunting rifle gone.

I could tell she wanted to now say the Mini 14 was bad yet knew it would discredit her claim about the AR because her dislike of it was clearly based on looks not function.

 

[Cosmos]

You can never compromise on gun control. It doesn't work. So no matter what you give in to, the leftists will always want something more until all guns are confiscated.

People that want gun control are not in the least bit interested in solving any gun crime problems. They just want this to be a perpetual political issue.

The focus should be on the perpetrators of gun crime, not the guns or honest law-abiding gun owners.

 

[Conservative65]

You can never compromise on gun control. It doesn't work. So no matter what you give in to, the leftists will always want something more until all guns are confiscated.

People that want gun control are not in the least bit interested in solving any gun crime problems. They just want this to be a perpetual political issue.

The focus should be on the perpetrators of gun crime, not the guns or honest law-abiding gun owners.

I find those that support the strongest level of gun control either don't own guns, know the least about guns, or a combination of both.

 

[Pilot1]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

If they are unconstitutional, then why are they still on the books?

The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups routinely challenge gun-control laws in the law courts at the drop of a hat.

When they think they have a case they can win, anyway.

The left wing lower courts are ignoring the Supreme Court rulings.....knowing in the past that there were only 4 reliable Constitutional votes on the court before Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed......that's why....

And Trump WILL get a third appointment very soon. Ginsburg's seat is empty.

 

[Conservative65]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

If they are unconstitutional, then why are they still on the books?

The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups routinely challenge gun-control laws in the law courts at the drop of a hat.

When they think they have a case they can win, anyway.

The left wing lower courts are ignoring the Supreme Court rulings.....knowing in the past that there were only 4 reliable Constitutional votes on the court before Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed......that's why....

And Trump WILL get a third appointment very soon. Ginsburg's seat is empty.

With #3, and there are rumors Thomas will retire in order that he be replaced by a Republican giving a younger person on the Court, the lefties will be shitting their pants for several more decades.

 

[Rigby5]

The militias were more local than state.
And yes that system did work for the US.
What is did not work for was imperialism and colonialism that requires more corrupt, paid, mercenaries.
The creation of the National Guard, as well as creating a large standing military, is completely illegal and can only result in dictatorship.

Okay this is where you are bordering into crazy town.

Here's the thing. Being a soldier in 2019 is a lot more technical than it was in 1776 when you "just showed up with your musket". It was actually pretty complicated then, which is why Washington had to import professional soldiers like Lafayette, von Steuben and Pulaski to show them how it was done.

And in case you have not noticed, the technology genie is out of the bottle, and anyone can make any firearm into a machine gun in about an hour.

yes, they can... they can also cook up Meth in their kitchen if they wanted to, but the government still cracks down on that sort of thing and they should.

Liar, the Waco massacre was created by flamethrower tanks, and there are lots of videos showing it very clearly.
Nor was there any valid legal basis for an arrest or assault even.

Koresh was illegally selling weapons and molesting kids. um, yeah, there was. Oh, there was also the armed shootout with other members of his cult which got the attention of ATF to start with.

How many illegal wars happened by the US in those 11 years that you did nothing at all about?

Zero. The only war that happened during my time in, the President went to Congress and got authorization to use force.

Crazy people are supposed to be in hospitals, and were until Reagan eliminated all the federal funding for health care back around 1986.

Again, you are a little confused. While Reagan's cuts didn't help, the real problem was in the 1970's, when the courts ruled that you couldn't lock people up for mental health reasons against their will unless they were an immediate danger. 18% of the population suffers from some form of mental illness, we can't lock them all up.

There actually are very few gun restrictions in any country except Japan, and they are not really free, but merely have benevolent dictatorships, like the UK.

Um, no. Japan and the UK lock up only 70,000 people each, we lock up 2 million and have another 7 million on probation or parole.

In the UK, the cops shoot maybe 2 people a year, our cops shoot 1200.

No, being a soldier now is a whole lot LESS technical now than it was then.
Soldiers now would not even be able to load a musket or keep their powder dry.
Basic training now is only 9 weeks, and back then it took a life time to be good at moving and fighting in the woods.
Now you have a huge supply network, electronic communications, and remote backup like planes.
Modern warfare is almost trivial compared to what it used to be.
Nor do I think those familiar with European tactics, like Lafayette, von Steuben and Pulaski, were a good idea.
Insurgents should never use those European formation tactics that are far too wasteful of human resources.
They should have only hit weaknesses, avoided direct confrontations, concentrate on supply lines or small outposts, and the closest they should come to direct confrontation is with an ambush.
You forget these colonists were all hunters and already much better soldiers than the modern military.

Sure there are specific things modern soldiers need to know now, like communications protocols, but that should be universal already. Teach it to all high school students. We do not want or should ever have a paid mercenary military. That is totally against a democratic republic or what the founder insisted upon. It essentially is treason.

And NO, the government should NOT at all be dictating what individuals do, including cooking meth in their kitchen, if they want. Government does NOT have that authority, and there is no way government can ever get that kind of authority, to protect people from their own stupidity. That is a dictatorship, not a democratic republic.

As for Waco and Branch Davidians, you have it totally wrong.
There was no illegal weapons sales, only experiments on if they could make ARs full auto.
Second is that no child molesting charges were brought, and there was no shoot out between member, because that is local, not ATF, and the sheriff would have handled all that.
And he also would have avoided any shoot out.
When he wanted to threaten Koresh about the children, he did it easily and safely when Koresh came to town.

There was a shootout with BATF, but the news clips can clearly be deliberately seen to be shown out of order, and that there are 2 separate groups at an upstairs window, and it is the 2nd group that starts the shooting at the first group of BATF already inside, who then are forced to return fire and shoot the BATF outside on the roof. It is plain as day. You can see because of the bullet holes fired from inside, through the wall. Clearly not there when BATF originally enter, even though they show that clip as if it happened later.

You are also totally wrong about all the wars since WWII. Not a single one was authorized by Congress. The Congressional resolution for the use of force in Iraq had 2 conditional trigger requirements, one of which had to be met. They were either a UN resolution to use force, or an imminent threat to the US. Since neither became true, ever, then there was no use of force authorized, and the invasion of Iraq was totally illegal and criminal, under US AND international law. Remember, the UN charter prohibits the use of force except in imminent defense, and was ratified into US law by Congress. And by the way, the wars were Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. And many more where we just illegally paid others to commit armed regime change for us illegally, like Chile, Egypt, Iran (1953), etc.

As for mental health, you are again totally wrong. No court ever ruled you can't lock up the mentally ill. They have always ruled you can and should. Law was never the issue, but money was. And it was Reagan who cut the money.
{...
The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. During the following Ronald Reagan administration, the United States Congress repealed most of the law.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.
...}
Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 - Wikipedia
The reality is that most mentally ill want to be locked up and use violence as their only means of getting it done.

With the section on gun control being a dictatorship, and the rest of the world just having a benevolent dictatorship, you miss the point.
The comparison with the rest of the world is that the US has a dictatorship that is NOT benevolent. While the rest of the world's dictatorship are benevolent at least for now. That is why the US has such a larger proportion of people imprisoned. It has nothing to do with them being less of a dictatorship. Any country with any government gun control is not a democratic republic, and is a dictatorship instead. That is clear because they are establishing the rules as that the general population can not be trusted, so then only an elite government will have any power. If that is not a dictatorship, it soon will be. Benevolent or not. It is wrong and backwards. In a democratic republic, you have to always put the population first, and government they hire can NEVER be at all trusted.

And by the way, I can easily prove this all with as many links as you want. I only included the one in this because I could not otherwise use logic to prove about Reagan. But if you don't like any of my logic, I can show you the details so you can make your own conclusions.

 

[Rigby5]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.

Should I waste my screw balll graphics on you for this one?

No, Hunt is correct.
Registration only effects honest people, who are not the problem.
Dishonest people either won't care about registration or will buy illegally like they do with drugs.
Making guns more illegal or registered only make the government more disgusting, guns more necessary, and those proposing those laws traitors.
The Prohibition of Alcohol showed that attempting to dictate by government decree always increases the problem and increased it by making it more profitable.
Anyone who did not learn that from the 1920s should not be allowed in government.

 

[Pilot1]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

After I read the first 2 lines, I was going to agree.
But then I read the 3rd line and have to disagree.
Rights are never given by any form of government, but are inherent to all individuals, in a democratic republic, and are the justification for allowing government to then be formed.
The only source of any legal authority in a democratic republic, is what is necessary in order to defend inherent individual rights.
Since governments can defend inherent individual rights, then governments can then be delegated the power of inherent rights by protecting them.
States and local governments can't be the source of rights, or else there would be no source of authority that could make it legal to create state or local governments.

Tough call, ain't it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.

Should I waste my screw balll graphics on you for this one?

No, Hunt is correct.
Registration only effects honest people, who are not the problem.
Dishonest people either won't care about registration or will buy illegally like they do with drugs.
Making guns more illegal or registered only make the government more disgusting, guns more necessary, and those proposing those laws traitors.
The Prohibition of Alcohol showed that attempting to dictate by government decree always increases the problem and increased it by making it more profitable.
Anyone who did not learn that from the 1920s should not be allowed in government.

And anyone not learning from the 30s has the same problem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

 

[2aguy]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

Also, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stated in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park ....( the court did not have enough votes to grant a hearing on Friedman, so Scalia's dissent was focused on why they should have taken the case, not on any of the merits).....Scalia wrote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

You are correct that the constitution does not mention natural rights very much.
But it does mention them enough for us to know the founders believed they existed.

{...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}

So then clearly there is the stated assumption that the people, all individuals, to have inherent rights.
And combined with the Declaration of Independence, then clearly it is those inherent individual, natural rights, that are the only source of any authority at all.

And some natural rights are enumerated.

{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...}

When you cut through all the BS, the Rights aren't given by the Constitution. What the Constitution is saying is that the Federals cannot take those rights. The actual rights are given by the states and local governments.

well then, i have the right for my guns and they can't take it away.

thank you for summing this up so nicely.

What they can't take away from you is the right to protect your home. That's already been established. The Weapon of choice, they certainly can limit you to. They can't regulate your handgun in your home except by the number of rounds it can hold but they can regulate everything when you leave the home. It's your right in your home but it becomes a privilege when you exit your home.

No, it doesn't become a privilege when you exit your home as it stated in Heller...... Scalia states there might be a case that they can prohibit concealed carry, but that means that open carry is Constitutional...and even concealed carry was prohibited in some states as a custom, but the prohibition would be struck down today because it was just that, a custom, that broke the law and was unconstitutional even at the time it was enacted...

 

[Cecilie1200]

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

"Gosh, you noticed me! That means I'm WINNING!"

No, hon. You got the exact same respect you always get from me. I can see why you'd feel the need to view disdain as a victory, though, being such a common incident in your life.

Most of us, though, try to actually BE right instead of just trying to claim to be.

Meanwhile, all your failed attempts to be clever aside, you're still an enemy of the Constitution and national sovereignty and still undeserving in every way of being "compromised with", because you still have zero right to demand we give in on anything.

Lol, call down kiddo.

I just heard, "I have no response, but I'm too dishonest to say so."

Your surrender is noted, and you may run along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

View attachment 240351

you know that better than me

Decrepitus reminds me strongly of creepy stalkers who take it as a sign of their "strong relationship" with the target when she files a restraining order, because "she noticed me!"

Keep tryin' kid, you'll get there one of these days.

You only needed to surrender once, thanks.

Buh-bye.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

Also, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stated in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park ....( the court did not have enough votes to grant a hearing on Friedman, so Scalia's dissent was focused on why they should have taken the case, not on any of the merits).....Scalia wrote....
<trimmed due to the rest taking up too much bandwidth>

What part of Dissent are you having trouble with. I highlighted it. It's just some Justice running off his mouth. It looks good on paper but it can be extremely tiresome. Dissent is of the loosing side. The Ruling is done by the the successful side. Show me the rulings that back up your fantasy.

 

[2aguy]

When folks like her learn they are wrong, they change but in the wrong direction. That's why the opinions of those that have no clue about the functioning of firearms quite often argue from a point of emotion. Adding cosmetic things to the AR doesn't make it function any different than it did before adding them. It's still semi automatic, still shoots a .223, and still has a magazine. The upgraded sights, flashlights, rails, etc. will never change that. It may make it more scary looking to those that don't have clue but it doesn't change a thing about how it functions.

This is why they now want to ban ALL semi auto firearms. This is unconstitutional of course as they fit the "COMMON USE" ruling in Miller, and I believe Heller.

Also, Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stated in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park ....( the court did not have enough votes to grant a hearing on Friedman, so Scalia's dissent was focused on why they should have taken the case, not on any of the merits).....Scalia wrote....
<trimmed due to the rest taking up too much bandwidth>

What part of Dissent are you having trouble with. I highlighted it. It's just some Justice running off his mouth. It looks good on paper but it can be extremely tiresome. Dissent is of the loosing side. The Ruling is done by the the successful side. Show me the rulings that back up your fantasy.

Moron, it wasn't a dissent on the merits of the case, it was a dissent telling the court they needed to hear the case......and he stated that AR-15 rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....and since he wrote the majority opinion in Heller, he was clarifying part of Heller that you moron's keep lying about.